3 ms·

Like I said, I can totally empathize. No, it's not cool to do that without any notice or consent. You didn't get the notice so as far as you're concerned there

Like I said, I can totally empathize. No, it's not cool to do that without any notice or consent. You didn't get the notice so as far as you're concerned there was none. I get that, it's totally understandable. That said, I don't think your example of Twitter is a good one. They're too different for that to work. But I don't think getting into that would be very productive for anyone so rather than doing that I'll just say this: while I get where you're coming from I think you're expectations are just north of being totally reasonable. The core if it makes total sense but it starts to unravel when you consider your expectation that you want to " trust them with the responsibility of not altering our relationship in a material way relative to the terms of service of the moment when I signed up for their service". That right there, the way I read it, means either "I expect your company to provide the exact same service and follow the exact same policies that I signed up with forever" or "you can only change your service and/or policies when it benefits me". That's unreasonable. No company on earth keeps its policies and services the same forever. They change every now and then. It upsets people and sometimes a change is negative for us but we adjust and move on. I get why you're leaving but still don't think Disqus is in the wrong. They obviously need to change their service to continue to provide the service. For some, like you, that's not acceptable but its still not that big of a deal. One thing I think you're forgetting is that there's a huge gap here between what you experienced and what the reality is. What you experienced what a major change in service without your consent or knowledge of it at all. That's certainly a reason to be upset. But the reality of the situation is that your case is an exception. Disqus did provide warning and a way to opt out. Now, had you not missed the announcement about this would you still feel the same way today? To be clear, I'm not telling you you're wrong to feel this way. What I'm saying is that it's wrong to characterize Disqus' actions as being sneaky or in breach of trust because they did provide a warning and a way to opt out - you, unfortunately, just happened to not get the memo. That sucks.

jacquesm 14y ago
Ok, here are my bits and pieces so far: (1) I don't expect them to deliver a certain service 'forever', they can shut down if they want to, I understand that (2) they can change their policies but they can't (or at least, should not, it is painfully obvious that they can) make it opt-out if it is a major change (and to me, adding stealthy advertising is a major change) (3) they can't use my name to make it seem as if I am on board with something when in fact I am totally not on board with that (4) I'm fine with them acting in this way, but then they have to accept that I'll call them out on it (5) web services (especially embeds) should default to grandfathering in older users (6) This change does not appear to me to be in line with accepted practice and legal requirements for advertising, as such they are making me part of something I do not wish to be a part of, stealth advertising is something I am very much against. (7) Had I received the announcement and had I seen that it was 'opt-out' I would have killed my disqus account immediately. Opt-out is the wrong way to make changes like these. To have no positive confirmation for a change like this is not acceptable to me. (8) I feel they are sneaky because of the way the ad blends in, because apparently when I'm on my home machine those ads are not there (or at least, they were not until yesterday) and I feel that such changes should never be forced.
- euroclydon 14y ago
  (1) I don't expect them to deliver a certain service 'forever', they can shut down if they want to, I understand that Um, I was really expecting to read: "...they can start charging me if they want to." And then your Twitter comparison too makes me think you really expect a free service, but one that cost money to operate, not to attempt to have an actual business model at some point in the future. Why would they just shut down before trying to make money? How did you make money with the web cam thing?
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    There is no 'free' in that sentence.
- bpatrianakos 14y ago
  I think we're in agreement more than it seems. Number 3 is especially important I think. It's especially sneaky to make it look like you're endorsing something you aren't or, worse, never even heard of. As for number 6 I'm no lawyer nor do I even have enough casual knowledge of this sort of thing to know anything about it so I'll take your word for it and if that really is the case then I'd wonder why they're not in any trouble over it yet. Where we differ here is on what we believe we're entitled to and when I use the word 'entitled' I'm not saying it in the usual "oh too many people think they're entitled to XYZ with free services these days" sense. Maybe "expectations" would be a better word but that's not it either. Yes, I do believe too many people feel too entitled these days especially with free services like this but that belief isn't absolute and I do believe there are some things we as users of any service free or not are entitled to, almost like a web user's bill of rights. Those things, in my mind are: 1. Notice of changes to service and policies If a policy is going to change or a feature is going to be added, removed, or modified we should get some sort of notice via email, blog post or preferably both. 2. The right of free users to keep their active accounts for as long as the service stays in business If I have a free Google account I expect that so long as I'm using it reasonably often Google won't decide one day to just get rid of all free accounts. 3. The right to continue using the core offering regardless of feature additions, subtractions, or modifications for any other account type. So as an Instagram user I should be able to take, post, like, and comment on photos as that is the very core of the product. If one day Instagram has paid accounts I'm not entitled to any of the upgraded features but I should never lose the ability to use the service in its most basic ways because I'm using it free. Those are the three "rights" I think we should have and even then they're still more like requests because we're still at the mercy of the provider until we pay. But generally, a free service provider who acts in good faith would follow those 3 rules. Now I think wanting the ads to be opt-in is more of a nice-to-have than something we should absolutely expect. I don't think its reasonable because users probably won't take notice at all as it requires effort. But by having it be opt-out, those who care will take the effort. It's really a win-win. Those who care don't have to deal with it while those who don't care get to share the revenue. Your line was crossed and you left and no one can't respect that. I have different limits and think mine are a little more reasonable considering it's a free service. I actually just registered the domain 'userbillofrights.org' because of your comment. Even though I don't agree with you here I think there's still a lot I do agree with and I want to invite you to help me write a user's bill of rights and maybe put it out there and get some free service providers to "endorse" it and maybe even try to compile a list of services that adhere to the user's bill of rights so people can see who they're dealing with before signing up. It's probably a dumb idea but I think it'd be fun. We can start with Disqus.
tripzilch 14y ago
If they had announced "we're going to add links to your comments to make it seem you're endorsing advertising of our choosing" that would not have made it okay. It's not something you can just announce and then do. There is no possible way it is okay to make "we're going to use your voice" as an opt-out feature. Without his consent it is just wrong. They could have sent him letters or even left him voicemail messages, but anything short of getting explicit approval makes the appearance of his endorsement a misrepresentation, or more simply, a lie.

jacquesm 14y ago

Ok, here are my bits and pieces so far: (1) I don't expect them to deliver a certain service 'forever', they can shut down if they want to, I understand that (2) they can change their policies but they can't (or at least, should not, it is painfully obvious that they can) make it opt-out if it is a major change (and to me, adding stealthy advertising is a major change) (3) they can't use my name to make it seem as if I am on board with something when in fact I am totally not on board with that (4) I'm fine with them acting in this way, but then they have to accept that I'll call them out on it (5) web services (especially embeds) should default to grandfathering in older users (6) This change does not appear to me to be in line with accepted practice and legal requirements for advertising, as such they are making me part of something I do not wish to be a part of, stealth advertising is something I am very much against. (7) Had I received the announcement and had I seen that it was 'opt-out' I would have killed my disqus account immediately. Opt-out is the wrong way to make changes like these. To have no positive confirmation for a change like this is not acceptable to me. (8) I feel they are sneaky because of the way the ad blends in, because apparently when I'm on my home machine those ads are not there (or at least, they were not until yesterday) and I feel that such changes should never be forced.

euroclydon 14y ago
(1) I don't expect them to deliver a certain service 'forever', they can shut down if they want to, I understand that Um, I was really expecting to read: "...they can start charging me if they want to." And then your Twitter comparison too makes me think you really expect a free service, but one that cost money to operate, not to attempt to have an actual business model at some point in the future. Why would they just shut down before trying to make money? How did you make money with the web cam thing?
- jacquesm 14y ago
  There is no 'free' in that sentence.
bpatrianakos 14y ago
I think we're in agreement more than it seems. Number 3 is especially important I think. It's especially sneaky to make it look like you're endorsing something you aren't or, worse, never even heard of. As for number 6 I'm no lawyer nor do I even have enough casual knowledge of this sort of thing to know anything about it so I'll take your word for it and if that really is the case then I'd wonder why they're not in any trouble over it yet. Where we differ here is on what we believe we're entitled to and when I use the word 'entitled' I'm not saying it in the usual "oh too many people think they're entitled to XYZ with free services these days" sense. Maybe "expectations" would be a better word but that's not it either. Yes, I do believe too many people feel too entitled these days especially with free services like this but that belief isn't absolute and I do believe there are some things we as users of any service free or not are entitled to, almost like a web user's bill of rights. Those things, in my mind are: 1. Notice of changes to service and policies If a policy is going to change or a feature is going to be added, removed, or modified we should get some sort of notice via email, blog post or preferably both. 2. The right of free users to keep their active accounts for as long as the service stays in business If I have a free Google account I expect that so long as I'm using it reasonably often Google won't decide one day to just get rid of all free accounts. 3. The right to continue using the core offering regardless of feature additions, subtractions, or modifications for any other account type. So as an Instagram user I should be able to take, post, like, and comment on photos as that is the very core of the product. If one day Instagram has paid accounts I'm not entitled to any of the upgraded features but I should never lose the ability to use the service in its most basic ways because I'm using it free. Those are the three "rights" I think we should have and even then they're still more like requests because we're still at the mercy of the provider until we pay. But generally, a free service provider who acts in good faith would follow those 3 rules. Now I think wanting the ads to be opt-in is more of a nice-to-have than something we should absolutely expect. I don't think its reasonable because users probably won't take notice at all as it requires effort. But by having it be opt-out, those who care will take the effort. It's really a win-win. Those who care don't have to deal with it while those who don't care get to share the revenue. Your line was crossed and you left and no one can't respect that. I have different limits and think mine are a little more reasonable considering it's a free service. I actually just registered the domain 'userbillofrights.org' because of your comment. Even though I don't agree with you here I think there's still a lot I do agree with and I want to invite you to help me write a user's bill of rights and maybe put it out there and get some free service providers to "endorse" it and maybe even try to compile a list of services that adhere to the user's bill of rights so people can see who they're dealing with before signing up. It's probably a dumb idea but I think it'd be fun. We can start with Disqus.

tripzilch 14y ago

If they had announced "we're going to add links to your comments to make it seem you're endorsing advertising of our choosing" that would not have made it okay. It's not something you can just announce and then do. There is no possible way it is okay to make "we're going to use your voice" as an opt-out feature. Without his consent it is just wrong. They could have sent him letters or even left him voicemail messages, but anything short of getting explicit approval makes the appearance of his endorsement a misrepresentation, or more simply, a lie.